The First Shots of the Second American Revolution have been fired

page: 19
107
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



No, that is not the case. Everyone is bound by Federal Law. They don't have to enforce it themselves, but they can't stop the feds from enforcing it. They can choose not to cooperate with the feds, but they can't arrest the feds for enforcing Federal Law.

Good luck with that...you are going to be a bit dissapointed when you finally realize all these bills/proposals are all bark and no bite.


The Supremacy Clause doesn’t apply to any law that violates the constitution because that law is invalid/unconstitutional. State authorities are obligated to support the constitution first. So, for instance, if a state deems a gun control law or healthcare mandate is “unconstitutional” it can most definitely prevent federal agents from enforcing that law in that state and arrest federal agents who violate state law.

Why do you worship at the altar of the federal government? You'd better hope the states have the power to stand their ground or we're all at the mercy of TPTB.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Daedalus
 



the states have the ability to govern themselves...complying with federal law is optional.




No, that is not the case. Everyone is bound by Federal Law. They don't have to enforce it themselves, but they can't stop the feds from enforcing it. They can choose not to cooperate with the feds, but they can't arrest the feds for enforcing Federal Law.

Good luck with that...you are going to be a bit dissapointed when you finally realize all these bills/proposals are all bark and no bite.


im not sure how old you are...which is important, because it tells me when you went to school...

i'm not sure if you're young, and they just didn't teach you, or if you're older, and you just didn't pay attention, but you missed out on a proper education.

States are sovereign. the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



The Supremacy Clause doesn’t apply to any law that violates the constitution because that law is invalid/unconstitutional. State authorities are obligated to support the constitution first. So, for instance, if a state deems a gun control law or healthcare mandate is “unconstitutional” it can most definitely prevent federal agents from enforcing that law in that state and arrest federal agents who violate state law.


No it can't.

It can appeal the law in court and get a final ruling from the SCOTUS, but they can't just deem a law Unconstitutional themselves and decide to ignore it.

Seriously, you guys are really reaching.

If that is the case, tell me why very Conservatives states don't just ignore the Roe vs Wade ruling because they obviously and honestly believe that it is Unconstitutional???


Why do you worship at the altar of the federal government? You'd better hope the states have the power to stand their ground or we're all at the mercy of TPTB.


I do believe in a strong central government. I am not a big supporter of States rights. I don't want to live in a country where I have to research laws and plan a road trip so I don't travel into a state where something I do, think, am, or believe in makes me a criminal. States rights may have made since at the conception of our nation...today it is just an outdated antique.

And I am not paranoid of the scary, invisible, boogeyman you call TPTB.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 



im not sure how old you are...which is important, because it tells me when you went to school...

i'm not sure if you're young, and they just didn't teach you, or if you're older, and you just didn't pay attention, but you missed out on a proper education.

States are sovereign. the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around.


That's cute...you think the States are sovereign.

If you want to compare education credentials...you can U2U me...but I just think it is funny that you actually think the States supercedes Federal Law.

Why does Mississippi allow abortion to be legal in their state?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



That's cute...you think the States are sovereign.


They were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation and it didn't take long for the centralizers to slap that down. Have you ever wondered why some people work so hard to keep power from the top down?

There are millions of people who depend on the federal teat for an income and it would be no surprise at all that they would object to State's Rights coming along and upsetting their apple carts. Those who pay for the carts and the apples in the carts have no say in your world?

I'm not in any way implying you're speaking as a federal employee but the idea that many of the same services wouldn't be needed by the states in a bottom up kind of scenario is ridiculous. Yes, things would change and perhaps the accounting would be more answerable to the people, but work would still be done and people would have choices. You make it sound like armageddon.


edit on 2-2-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

I do believe in a strong central government.


Hows that working for you?




You want a "strong" Central Government, which we have, but you want it BIGGER?




Originally posted by xedocodex
I am not a big supporter of States rights.


Obviously.




Originally posted by xedocodex
I don't want to live in a country where I have to research laws and plan a road trip so I don't travel into a state where something I do, think, am, or believe in makes me a criminal.


There are other Countries to choose from. Maybe its time you look to the possibility of one of them.


Originally posted by xedocodex
States rights may have made since at the conception of our nation...today it is just an outdated antique.


That means our Constitution is outdated and Antiquated. You are wrong.



Originally posted by xedocodex
And I am not paranoid of the scary, invisible, boogeyman you call TPTB.


Ignorant, but typical.

Fiat Money, Increasing Debt, Executive Decisions, and Actions, Gitmo, NDAA, 30k drones in the US Skies, Patriot Act. All of these are part of a bigger Picture, smaller minds would like to make believe doesn't concern them. BTW, these are facts even a blind man couldn't avoid. But don't worry. Your "strong" Centralized Government is doing a bang up job.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Hmm no offense but clearly you missed the point, not like I would expect you to anyway. You look like an intelligent fellow and must know lots about captivating an audience. I offered an idea so next time things may be a bit more clear, it is also a FACT that you captivate your audience with the first line of you presentation, it defines the work. If I were to take that out of context and put that line on it's own this would seem like a Tea Party piece, not the OPS intention but it was the inevitability. Sorry I usually present my opinions like an asshole, but your clearly no stranger to it. Look it up.
edit on 2-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Unconstitutional law need not be enforced. Look up the act of nullification. The states' power of nullification is inherent. Before the Constitution was ratified, states were essentially separate nations. The constitution was an agreement; a compact.


Regarding the Constitution of the United States, the compact theory holds that the nation was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and that the federal government is consequently a creation of the states. Consequently, states should be the final arbiters over whether the federal government had overstepped the limits of its authority as set forth in the compact. Leading proponents of this view of the U.S. Constitution primarily originated from Virginia and other southern states. Notable proponents of the theory include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, St. George Tucker, John Taylor of Caroline,and Abel P. Upshur.
Compact Theory

If you read the OP you'll see that states are already telling the fed where it can put its unconstitutional laws. You'll see it across the country.

edit on 2-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You are living in the past at best...but most likely you are living in an entirely different fantasy world.

You will not see a state secede in your or my lifetime...not in our childrens lifetime. You will not see a local sheriff arrest a federal agent. You will not see a new Revolution or Civil War.


We aren't living in the times of colonies and rebellion against a government who is across the ocean and months from communication. You are simply just living in a fantasy world.


Why do I say all this? Because you didn't even read your own source.


In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states, stating: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'" The Court contrasted the earlier Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, characterizing the Articles of Confederation as a compact among states, while stating that the Constitution was established not by the states, but by the people.[8]

Likewise, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court stated that the federal Constitution proceeded directly from the people, and was not created by the states. The Court stated that the Constitution was binding on the states and could not be negated by the states. The Court again contrasted the Articles of Confederation, which was established by the states, to the Constitution, which was established by the people.[9]

After the Civil War, in Texas v. White (1869), a case discussing the legal status of the southern states that had attempted to secede, the Supreme Court stated that the union was not merely a compact among states; rather, the union was "something more than a compact."[
edit on 2-2-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



There are other Countries to choose from. Maybe its time you look to the possibility of one of them.


Nah, I like America how it is...I'm not the one trying to change it calling for Revolution or Civil War.

Maybe it is you that needs to look for a different country. I like my centralized government country...but you don't seem to.


That means our Constitution is outdated and Antiquated. You are wrong.


No, the best thing about the Constitution is that it gives the ability to change it and interpret it for our own times.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Yeah, by making a #ing amendment, when is the last time that happened?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Daedalus
 



im not sure how old you are...which is important, because it tells me when you went to school...

i'm not sure if you're young, and they just didn't teach you, or if you're older, and you just didn't pay attention, but you missed out on a proper education.

States are sovereign. the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, not the other way around.


That's cute...you think the States are sovereign.

If you want to compare education credentials...you can U2U me...but I just think it is funny that you actually think the States supercedes Federal Law.

Why does Mississippi allow abortion to be legal in their state?


The states ARE sovereign.

I'm only interested in whether or not you graduated high school, and when you attended. no need for a U2U.

State law supersedes Federal law, most especially when the federal law in question is unconstitutional, or exceeds the stated powers of the federal government, as perscribed by the constitution.

Abortion has nothing to do with this, stop trying to change the subject.


I find it funny how people who believe in big, powerful, overreaching, big brother government, and don't believe in state's rights are only opposed to state's rights, when it's convenient to their argument..

A state has no rights, unless it's using them to enforce a law against, or legislate away something you don't like, then state's rights is fine...but when a state exercises it's rights to not enforce unconstitutional laws, they're somehow bad...

that shows hypocrisy, and a dangerous level of ignorance....



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus

Originally posted by Bluesma
But the government was voted into place by people. It represents half of the people


No, they were voted into place by Diebold, Sequoia, and Hart InterCivic...they don't represent ANY of us, and haven't for a long time...


Well, I know it represents some people because a bunch of my family members voted for them and still feel they represent their concerns......



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag




But of course you can kill your neighbor. And all this talk I see here reflects a mistaken conclusion that it is "the people" against "the government".

The federal government no longer represents the people.



But the government was voted into place by people. It represents half of the people. The Democrats and the Republicans are the people.

Yet no matter which party wins the results are the same. Who is represented when everyone gets screwed?


I know personally and closely many people who voted for Obama, and support what he is doing. Thy do not believe everyone will be screwed.
So what happens to a revolution when not everyone is on board? Do you think they will simply sit back and watch it happen? This is a conspiracy theorist site, so it attracts mostly those unhappy with the current governent- but that is not a correct representation of the mass....



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by seabag




But of course you can kill your neighbor. And all this talk I see here reflects a mistaken conclusion that it is "the people" against "the government".

The federal government no longer represents the people.



But the government was voted into place by people. It represents half of the people. The Democrats and the Republicans are the people.

Yet no matter which party wins the results are the same. Who is represented when everyone gets screwed?


I know personally and closely many people who voted for Obama, and support what he is doing. Thy do not believe everyone will be screwed.
So what happens to a revolution when not everyone is on board? Do you think they will simply sit back and watch it happen? This is a conspiracy theorist site, so it attracts mostly those unhappy with the current governent- but that is not a correct representation of the mass....


had you paid attention to American History, you would know that the revolution that created our republic was started by a minority of men, unhappy with the government's usurpation of their rights....

and obama isn't really the problem, he's just a cutout...the people running him are the real problem..
edit on 3-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states, stating: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'" The Court contrasted the earlier Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, characterizing the Articles of Confederation as a compact among states, while stating that the Constitution was established not by the states, but by the people.[8]

Likewise, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court stated that the federal Constitution proceeded directly from the people, and was not created by the states. The Court stated that the Constitution was binding on the states and could not be negated by the states. The Court again contrasted the Articles of Confederation, which was established by the states, to the Constitution, which was established by the people.[9]

After the Civil War, in Texas v. White (1869), a case discussing the legal status of the southern states that had attempted to secede, the Supreme Court stated that the union was not merely a compact among states; rather, the union was "something more than a compact."


LOL, like they're going to vote to reduce their power.

There weren't any "people" who voted to create the federal government, it was the delegates OF the states. Very few of "the people" even knew what was written in the Constitution until after it was ratified and published.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus


had you paid attention to American History, you would know that the revolution that created our republic was started by a minority of men, unhappy with the government's usurpation of their rights....

and obama isn't really the problem, he's just a cutout...the people running him are the real problem..


What is wrong with you people? Why is it so impossible to discuss these subjects without using snarky rude insults??

Where did I put any in? Where did I EARN that insult? Every Friggin' thread right now, no matter how respectful one is, is responded to with childish snarkiness!! Let's play grown up style, 'kay?

YES, I paid attention to american history, and I do not see the current situation as being the same.
I know from listening first hand that there are americans that think those talking about doing a revolution are dangerous and crazy and they are saying they need to keep guns because of you!
You have opposition in your own country and they will be active (and armed, of course).



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Daedalus


had you paid attention to American History, you would know that the revolution that created our republic was started by a minority of men, unhappy with the government's usurpation of their rights....

and obama isn't really the problem, he's just a cutout...the people running him are the real problem..


What is wrong with you people? Why is it so impossible to discuss these subjects without using snarky rude insults??

Where did I put any in? Where did I EARN that insult? Every Friggin' thread right now, no matter how respectful one is, is responded to with childish snarkiness!! Let's play grown up style, 'kay?

YES, I paid attention to american history, and I do not see the current situation as being the same.
I know from listening first hand that there are americans that think those talking about doing a revolution are dangerous and crazy and they are saying they need to keep guns because of you!
You have opposition in your own country and they will be active (and armed, of course).



it was not intended to be a "snarky insult", and it's not my fault that you took it that way. it was an annoyed reaction to you appearing to be completely oblivious to certain historical facts and themes...
edit on 3-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus


it was not intended to be a "snarky insult", and it's not my fault that you took it that way. it was an annoyed reaction to you appearing to be completely oblivious to certain historical facts and themes...


I pretty much assumed the rudeness was an "annoyed reaction", my point is that I did not treat you with any sort of rudeness, so did not merit it.
I disagreed with you, that does not mean I am oblivious.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Daedalus


it was not intended to be a "snarky insult", and it's not my fault that you took it that way. it was an annoyed reaction to you appearing to be completely oblivious to certain historical facts and themes...


I pretty much assumed the rudeness was an "annoyed reaction", my point is that I did not treat you with any sort of rudeness, so did not merit it.
I disagreed with you, that does not mean I am oblivious.


actually, you disagreed with seabag....and you kinda attacked him, politely, for his opinion...

stuff like what you said annoys me *shrug*





top topics
 
107
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join